Due to a careless reading of the Op by others, I was mischaracterized as a prolifer. This caused some confusion.
Not Magdalene’s fault at all.
The commiseration that I am the meaning in her life and the inspiration, is eminently satisfactory to me (damn, you say that and you can call me anything.)
had you taken a moment to actually read my post rather than simply playing cut and paste games, you would see that I was abundantly clear on this.
Needs2know:
Because all childbirth carries risk, are you suggesting that even in the case of an ectopic pregnancy which would be fatal to both mother and fetus, an abortion is not justified?
No Scylla I’m suggesting the notion that the “life of the mother exception” is inconsistant with a pro-life stance in a similar fashion that exceptions for rape or incest are. A severly diabetic woman knows that her doctor has advised against pregnancy in the first place. She is careless and gets pregnant, how is that any different than a healthy woman being careless. Other than the fact that the first woman had an even greater responsibility to herself for preventing pregnancy. It’s an exception that doesn’t hold water. You see these so called “exceptions” are just buzz words that in my opinion waters down a pro-lifers stance. It implies that "yes, we understand that a woman might have a ligitimate reason for wanting to terminate a pregnancy and we give our permission in certain circumstances. Oh thank you very much.
And I’m assuming that when you refer to ectopic pregnancy you are talking about what I thought was a “tubal pregnancy”? I’m no doctor but I was under the impression that these types of pregnancies are not viable and cannot be carried to term anyway. Yes they are a certain danger to the mother and are usually taken care of immediately. But then I may not understand what I’m talking about, perhaps you can explain.
Bingo. Punising women for having consensual sex. Or hoping they’ll be frightened into chastity if abortions are forbidden. I think those are the motivations for at least some in the anti-abortion camp.
[/quote]
So I’m not the only person who suspects this is the operant motivation for many of those folks! Especially many among the leaders thereof.
IMO, neither stupidity nor accident deserves a federally mandated death sentence. Nor does it justify putting the diabetic woman in your example at unwarranted risk. It seems rather cut and dried (at least in the early weeks,) that an abortion is medically prudent. Have that same woman walk into her Doctor’s office at 7 1/2 months or so, and there’s a bit of a dilemma.
I’m not sure what you mean by “not being viable.” Your tubal pregancy will grow and develop like any baby or suffer various abnormalities. It will place pressure and cause great pain as it grows. It may die on its own, and be reabsorbed, or rot inside the mother causing a long lingering, painful death, or it may grow until the mother’s insides rupture and she bleeds out, dying in great distress.
Doing nothing is almost certainly catastrophic, and there is no real way that a living infant is going to see the light of day.
Abortion is a medical necessity in such a circumstance. I think that such an example certainly does “hold water.”
Maybe we have some medical people here who can explain but a tubal pregnancy is not really a pregnancy! Of course there is pain. But the proceedure to alieviate the complications that result from a tubal pregnancy should not be referred to as an abortion! Even if it is, that is implying that a tubal pregnancy is indeed a viable pregnancy that can be carried to term and potentially result in a healthy baby. I’m sorry but this is the very kind of double talk that I do not understand. Either you believe that an abortion is wrong or you don’t. Quit clouding the issue with hypothetical claptrap.
There is a limit to what ignorance excuses, my friend.
I was not speaking hyopothetically at all. At 6 weeks there are eyes, and a heartbeat. The fetus moves and sleeps. The operation is called an abortion.
Needs2Know - it is your position that an ectopic pregnancy “is not really a pregnancy?” I would like to have some medical explanation of that.
I mean, a sperm fertilized an egg. The woman obviously went to a doctor believing she was pregnant, and subsequently the tubal pregnancy was discovered. Do you believe that life begins at conception? Or does it begin when the egg has successfully made its way into the uterus and implanted itself there?
It seems that your assertion “she’s not really pregnant, so it’s not really an abortion” sounds strangely like the loophole of “at that stage it’s just a bunch of tissue, and not really a human being” argument of pro choicers. Care to clarify?
How do you feel about “the morning after pill”? This is a high dose of the birth control pill. If taken 1-3 days after sex, it can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting itself, thereby preventing pregnancy. Is this also abortion?
I think that you are right when you say that the rape, incest, and abortion exception do water down the pro-life position. And I sense that you are a consistent pro-lifer, except for this strange exception for ectopic pregancies. But only for an ectopic pregnancy. Not for any other life-threatening condition or complication. Is that what we can understand?
With respect to the exception regarding the mother’s health, the principle is that the operation is not intended to cause the death of anyone-- mother or baby. It is intended to save the life of the mother. It may have, as an unintended secodnary effect, the result of killing the unborn child. An ecotpic pregnancy may be dealt with in this way.
With regard to cases of rape and incest, I would support a law limiting abortions except in those circumstances – because by doing so, I could save the lives of countless people now killed by abortions. While it’s true that some innocent people would continue to die, the vast majority would be saved. It’s not an ideal outcome, but it’s better than the status quo.
The foregoing are, in my view, defensible analyses that may be applied to these positions.
First of all I’m not a pro-lifer. I’m pro-choice, still, I think. I haven’t yet decided how a feel about when life begins. And I have no idea why we are arguing about an damned tubal pregnancy, they cannot be carried to term! Stop muddying the waters with this shit! Yeah, it’s a pregnancy all right but not a viable pregnancy. And we are after all talking about a potential baby here or are we really talking about a curious little bundle of cells. Claptrap isn’t actually the right word for this, it’s bullshit. Don’t ask me silly questions about abortion pills either. I take Depo Provera my uterus won’t even except an egg, fertile or otherwise, there’s no tissue and good stuff for it to adhere too, does that mean I’m having an abortion every month!
This is my position…it makes no logical sense to me to use the “you’re killing a baby”, “life is sacred” line to oppose abortion if you give exceptions. Then you are still sanctioning the termination of a life. So what if the mother’s life is in danger. ANY WOMAN WHO GETS PREGNANT can theoretically be in physical danger as a result of pregnancy. Quantifying and qualifying your options on this does not make sense. A child concieved by rape is no less innocent or no less valid as a human being than a child concieved in a loving relationship. A woman with a preexsistant medical condition and a healthy woman are no less responsible for their own pregnancies. Other than the fact that one most certainly will develop complications and the other is running a crap shoot.
When I’m secure myself about when I believe life begins then I will not feel comfortable making these life or death decisions for someone else. You either oppose abortion or you don’t. If you have to tack on a rider then you really don’t know where you stand, do you?
Just thought you might want to see what c&p games really look like. My previous post had an exact quote whose meaning was unchanged by the removal from its context. How is that “playing games”? You said that you believe that, at some point in a pregnancy, the fetus becomes a human being. You also said that the trauma of being raped may make abortion a necessary choice. It is not clear whether you believe the latter can occur after the former. While you may have sent psychic messages on this matter, I did not receive any of them.
I don’t think that this is a mischaracterization. There’s a difference between being pro-life and being anti-choice.
Dinsdale
You know, the word “effect” works just as well as “effectuate”.
Bricker, I respect your opinions. But if you make the law restricting abortions, but allowing it in cases of rape, incest, or threat to mother’s life, how does it work? How does it get administered? I respectfully ask you to answer the OP. Say you get your wish, now answer:
a) Will a woman have to prove rape or incest in a court of law to receive access to an abortion? Does this become an issue for the courts & criminal justice system.
Allowing for the length of criminal trials, appeals, things that could go wrong, what are the chances that the woman in question will actually be allowed to have an abortion? If the system works, isn’t she de facto being denied an abortion, even in a case of rape or incest?
Can the woman sue the rapist or molester for child support? What happens to the unwanted child? I believe it was quixotic who waxed, well, quixotic about the possibility that she could come to view her child as the one beautiful thing to come out of such a tragedy." How likely is this really?
b) What would be the process for allowing abortions based on medical necessity. A doctor’s note? A hearing before a judge?
It seems that this is just a big way of saying “of course there are extenuating circumstances where Big Brother will allow you to have an abortion, as long as you jump through the right hoops and let US decide for you.”
It also seems to say that many pro-lifers can see extenuating circumstances where abortions would be necessary for women. It’s a slippery slope, my friends.
If a woman had been raped, and decided after 8 months that she wanted an abortion, I would not favor a law that would allow her one.
Needs2know:
Real people have ectopic pregnancies. The fact that that life is doomed, does not make it less real. When the pregnancy is ended in the interests of preserving the mother’s life, I am quite sure that those real people feel real grief. I would not disdain that grief. A very real, human, much loved, and much anticipated child died.
Needs2Know - I had mistakenly classified you as a pro-lifer who was making an exception for an ectopic pregnancy. Your posts to Scylla seemed to indicate that.
Please calm down - the whole point of this thread is to challenge people who think they have their minds made up.
I’m not trying to sling claptrap or bullshit - Some very conservative pro-life people DO in fact think that morning after pills, birth control pills, and DepoProvera are tantamount to abortions, which is why I brought it up. Isn’t that one of the anti-abortion and anti-contraception arguments of the Roman Catholic Church?
Come on Maggie…slippery slope? It’s outright hypocracy! What’s the difference between a severely diabetic woman wanting an abortion and a women who’s addicted to crack? I know some people think that they are taking this stance to protect innocent babies but what they are really doing is attempting to play god, or Big Brother like you stated. Well meaning most of them I’m sure. Thought it out much from some other standpoint than the sound bites coming from their closest pulpit, not much I bet. I used to believe this was a complicated issue. Now I don’t, not if you really think about it, it’s pretty cut and dried. If life begins at conception then that’s when it begins. If you believe that then you have absolutely no right to give your permission to terminate it. Which is pretty much what all these “exceptions” are all about.
Fair enough. The key portion in my statement is “I dunno.” I have very limited experience with the severely retarted, no personal experience that I can think of. I haven’t fully thought this facet of abortion through. I’m going on the assumption that everyone thinks that abortion is, well, not a best case scenario. I don’t think there’s anyone around who argues that abortion is a Good thing. People argue that having the choice to abort is good, true, but I don’t see anyone saying, “Friday, I’m gonna go out, have unprotected sex so that I can have an abortion a few weeks later! Woo!”
Accepting that assumption, we reach a key difference between the pro-lifers and the pro-choicers. The pro-lifers say, “Everyone is entitled to their chance to live. Sure, life can suck, it can really suck for some people, but who are we to deny a fetus the opportunity to enjoy the good in life?” With respect to the severely mentally retarded, and this is the part where I must confess ignorance: do they even have the ability to enjoy life? Does anybody know? When I say “retarded,” I’m not talking about the guy with Down’s Syndrome who is sincerely one of the kindest people that anyone knows. I’m talking about a person who cannot communicate in any intelligible way ever in their life. I’m talking about someone who is most likely in constant severe pain, although without an effective way to communicate, we can’t be certain. In short, I’m talking about they human who has no ability to enjoy the “good in life” that pro-lifers hold so dear.
I don’t think anyone will ever know for certain what a severely handicapped person can experience as far as joy and happiness. And I understand, wring, how this point seems inconsistent with the rest of my stance. Again, it’s not something I’ve totally thought out, simply because I lack knowledge. I do hold life sacred, for my own reasons, but I feel that no one should have to suffer if that suffering is absolute and there exists no possibility for even the slightest enjoyment.
Of course, we’re talking about an extremely limited case here (remember, the framework was the hypothetical situation that we could know about this retardation with 100% certainty).
And Ryan, in your case, a wide variety of Pit appropriate language I will presently forego would work just as well as thanking you for your thoughtful and constructive comment furthering this debate.
It is just for such reasons as you suggested that I am reluctantly pro-choice.
I am also of the opinion that the woman needs to make her mind up quickly. This is a human life that is being ended, moving from a couple of cells to recognizably human; sleeping, dreaming, able to feel pain.
I support a ban abortions after the 1st trimester, with the exception of medical necessity as determined by a qualified physician.
Scylla, that pretty much approximates my personal position.
I guess an open question would be whether there are populations in which a lack of education, support groups, counseling, medical treatment might contribute to a pregnant woman having more trouble making this decision during the first trimester.
Needs2Know - do you get that I am pro-choice and that I am trying to point out inconstencies in the other side’s arguments? I’m confused about you - in one response you say you are pro-choice, in another you say
In another, you are confused and your mind is not made up.
Needs2Know, so I can better respond to your posts in this thread, please choose one:
I am:
pro-life. Life begins at conception, pregnancies should never be terminated, unless they are ectopic.
pro-choice. Ending a pregnancy is a difficult choice that is often accompanied by many extenuating factors. It’s not for me or the government to decide what is best for a woman or her child.
profoundly undecided, in which case I will settle down, read and consider the posts of others, and present my views and questions in a clear and rational way.
Scylla, as a pro-choice woman, I see no problem with what you said. If you’re gonna do it, do it quickly. Having an abortion ISN’T the same as getting a tumor or a cyst or other “bundle of tissue” removed. I support the ban on partial birth abortions as well - unless the mother & baby are in mortal danger. If you couldn’t make up your mind 7 months ago and are still carrying the baby, have the damn kid and give it up for adoption.
These are the same types of questions that must be answered for any law. We forbid murder, for instance, but permit a person to lawfully take life under circumstances such as self-defense. Many specific questions must be answered: how much of a threat must be in evidence before self-defense allows you to take a life? Do you have a duty to retreat if you can? Are you entitled to defend another, or just yourself?
These things are tricky, but we accept them - and have, I might add, fifty different answers for them in fifty different states - because we accept the general principle of self-defense as a justification for killing.
Turning to your specific questions:
If I were asked to undertake drafting the law, I might require that the woman show some reasonable evidence of rape or incest. This could be limited to her declaration, and some substantive step taken, such as a police report filed. In other words, I would not require that someone be found and convicted – just that the woman took whatever steps would normally be taken by a victim of such a crime.
This objection is handled by my draft, above.
If the woman provides support for the child, she can of course sue the rapist or molester for support. If the woman gives up the child for adoption, then she no longer provides support, and could not sue for it.
I see a doctor’s declaration as sufficient.
I don’t really accept the picture of “Big Brother allowing” an abortion, because in my view, what the government is doing is protecting its citizens against attacks by others of its citizens. If you wish to kill someone, much as in the case of self-defense law I mention above, it feels very right to me that there would be plenty of hoops to jump through before getting permission, in the same way that the judge won’t simply take your word that it was self-defense, but look at the evidence closely before acquitting you of murder.
